Chapter II

1º. At High Mass, ought the celebrant to elevate the Host before the choir has terminated the singing of the Sanctus and following words?

_Answer_: The _Caeremoniale Episcop._ lib. ii. no. 70, gives the answer: "Chorus prosequitur cantum usque ad _Benedictus qui venit_ exclusive: quo _finito et non prius_ elevatur sacramentum. Tunc silet chorus et cum aliis adorat. Organum vero, si habetur, cum omni tunc melodia et gravitate pulsandum est". The celebrant ought to proceed slowly with the canon, so as to give time to the choir to terminate their part before he comes to the elevation. The choir ought to be cautioned not to protract the singing of the Sanctus too much.

2º. At High Mass, when the celebrant has sung "Et ne nos inducas in tentationem", in the Pater Noster, is he bound to wait until the choir has finished singing "Sed libera nos a malo", before he says Amen?

_Answer:_ According to a ceremonial much esteemed in Rome, published by a missionary of St. Vincent, in Bologna, 1854, l. iv. no. 1484, the priest is bound to wait. The choir _agit partem ministri_ in its answers at High Mass, and on that account the priest must wait until it responds to him, as on other occasions he waits until the server or clerk terminates his answers.

After the priest has sung "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", he must also wait until the choir has sung "Et cum spiritu tuo", before he says "Haec commixtio", etc.

3º. When the deacon has sung "Ite Missa est", can the celebrant, without waiting for the choir to answer "Deo gratias", turn to the altar and say the prayer "Placeat"?

_Answer_: The _Caeremoniale_, Ep. l. ii. c. viii. no. 78, says: "Diaconus vertit faciem ad populum, renes autem celebranti ... et cantat (Ite missa est) ... quo dicto, _ipse_ et _celebrans simul_ vertunt se per latus epistolae ad altare, et celebrans dicit (Placeat tibi, S. Trinitas, etc)". As the singing of "Deo gratias" occupies so short a time, it will terminate before the priest can turn to the altar; in any case, he ought not to commence the Placeat until the choir has responded.

CORRESPONDENCE.

Kilkee, February 7th, 1865.

_To the Editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record._

GENTLEMEN,

Be pleased to allow me to bring under your notice a slight mistake
noticeable in the January issue of your _Record_, and in doing so
I may be permitted to express my great satisfaction, and that of
all those who spoke to me on the subject, with the interesting and
varied matter in your _Record_. Your high character, not to speak
of stronger reasons, will secure for your statements a ready
acceptance with Catholics, and this, coupled with the very faultless
character of your extensively read periodical, renders me anxious
to have it the medium of correction to its own mistakes, however
slight. The learned writer on the Irish sees of the sixteenth
century, speaking of the vicissitudes of Clonmacnois, and of its
subjection to the metropolitical see of Tuam, says, in p. 158 of
the _Record_: "This change probably took place during the episcopate
of Bishop Symon of the Order of St. Dominick, who, though omitted
in the lists of Ware and De Burgo, was appointed to the see on
the death of Dr. Henry in 1349". Now, Symon was never Bishop of
Clonmacnois. Indeed, as remarked by the learned writer in the
_Record_, Theiner gives, in page 291, the bull of his appointment.
But the appointment was null, as the see was not vacant by the death
of Dr. Henry. Hence, by looking to the next page of Theiner, you
will see how good Pope Clement VI. acknowledges and rectifies the
mistake by appointing Symon to the see of Kildare, then vacant.
The report of Dr. Henry's death was unfounded; therefore, as
the bull of Pope Clement declares, Symon was not, and in the
circumstances could not have been, Bishop of Clonmacnois. "Cum
autem sicut postea vera relatio ad nos perduxit", etc., the Pope
says, addressing Symon, "tu nullius Ecclesiae remansisti".

I remain, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,

SYLVESTER MALONE.

[We feel much obliged to our learned and reverend correspondent for the interest he takes in the success and the accuracy of the _Record_, and we beg to assure him that the greatest attention will be paid to every communication and suggestion from him, or from any other promoter of the study of Irish ecclesiastical literature or antiquities. In publishing the _Record_, our only desire is to illustrate and uphold truth, and thus to promote the interests of religion.

We regret that, our colleague who treated of the See of Clonmacnoise in the January number being at present absent, we have not been able to communicate to him the remarks contained in the above letter; we can therefore only state that, as he was not treating of the fourteenth century, he referred only incidentally to the appointment of Bishop Symon in order to fix the period at which a change had been "_probably_" effected in a matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction connected with the See of Clonmacnoise, and that he had no intention of giving the history of the bishops of that diocese, or of entering into a question which was not connected with his subject; so that, having fixed the date in question with accuracy--as he does by referring to the appointment of Bishop Symon to Clonmacnoise, as given by Theiner--it did not appear necessary for him to proceed farther.

However that may be, we can safely promise in the name of our colleague, that he will be happy to correct any mistake into which he may have fallen. He will be able to do so the more readily because he has been requested to publish in a separate volume all he has written on the succession of the Bishops in the various Sees of Ireland. When corrected and completed, these articles will be a valuable accession to our ecclesiastical history, whilst they will supply a triumphant answer to an assertion of the learned Dr. Todd in the preface to his _Life of St. Patrick_, viz.: that the original Irish Church, having merged into the Church of the English Pale, adopted the Reformation in the sixteenth century. That assertion undoubtedly was made hastily and without sufficient reflection. Any one who reads the articles of the _Record_ will find that it has no foundation in fact. Penal laws, indeed, and brute force were employed to propagate the Reformation in Ireland, but the true faith was so deeply rooted in the minds of the clergy and laity of the "original Irish Church" that all the powers of Hell could not exterminate it.

As to Bishop Symon, mentioned by our correspondent, it appears that he was appointed in 1349 by Clement VI. to Derry, not to Kildare. According to Ware, there was no vacancy in that year in this last see, as it was occupied from 1334 to 1365 by Richard Hulot and Thomas Giffard. But in the list of the Bishops of Derry given by Ware, a Bishop Symon, of some order of friars, is mentioned as filling that see in 1367 and 1369. The historian states that he could not discover to what religious order that prelate belonged, or what was the date of his consecration. The valuable documents published by the Archivist of the Vatican, F. Theiner, show that Bishop Symon was of the Order of St. Dominick, that he was consecrated by Talleyrand, Bishop of Albano, that he was appointed to Derry in 1349, and that he succeeded a Bishop Maurice who was unknown to Ware. A copy of the brief appointing Bishop Symon to Derry, was sent to the Archbishop of Armagh, as appears from Theiner, p. 292. This shows that the _Ecclesia Darensis_ conferred on Bishop Symon belonged to the province of Armagh. Kildare, indeed, was called by the same name, but it belonged to a different province. Theiner gives the appointment of a Bishop of Kildare at page 261, in which reference is made to his metropolitan of Dublin. At page 64 _Ecclesia Darensis_ is mentioned again, but it is stated to belong to the metropolitan of Armagh. Thus, although Derry and Kildare went by the same name, it is not difficult to determine to which see the papal Bulls regarding them belong, because mention is generally made of the metropolitan to whose suffragan the document is addressed.]

DOCUMENTS.